Life philosophy doesn't care about whether or not the speaker's opinions have any relevance to the world. It cares about the speaker himself, and what importance such opinions as: 'the world sucks' or 'the world is golden', have for the speaker himself. — Merkwurdichliebe
This has very little relevance to the physical or logical structure of the world, or any philosophical explanation. But for you, in your life, it has great importance. — Merkwurdichliebe
Life philosophy essentially turns you back upon yourself, and forces you to examine and reflect upon your own life/existence. I might argue that the more exposure one has to the traditions of philosophy, the better the self examination. — Merkwurdichliebe
A 'true' philosopher takes the impersonal personally. — g0d
We are doing a kind of psychology. So what I take seriously is important information for me as I try to understand the world. I take my own standpoint into the account. Having no standpoint perhaps only means that one has been careless. We have to work through our standpoint perhaps.
And what if 'seeing the world aright' is as much a matter of character as it is of logic? — g0d
A true philosopher see the usefulness of the useless. I think one thing that makes philosophers special is that they are so paradoxical. — Merkwurdichliebe
And if we consider psychology to be intermediate between science and life of the subject, then this is probably where systems philosophy and philosophy of life overlap. — Merkwurdichliebe
And I think seeing the world aright' is as much a matter of character as it is of logic. But logic pertains much more to a scientific understanding, whereas good character, although it might have corollary benefits and be scientifically explicable, it is infinitely important to me and my life, regardless of any honor or repute I may receive. — Merkwurdichliebe
This is true. But I personally find that turning back into my own depths just led me back out to the wide world. 'I' am only a vessel. The 'I' is the candle and not the flame. This isn't science but a metaphorical framework, a 'spiritual' statement. So it's not I but Christ science, art, and philosophy thru me that matters. — g0d
I don't see how thoughtful people can avoid some kind of unofficial and slippery psychology as they try to make sense of the world. At the very least we have to wrestle with ourselves and be on the lookout for rationalization. And we have to model others in order to predict them, make them happy, destroy them if way breaks out. Folk psychology looks central to human life. Status play, etc — g0d
A physicists can be an asshole and his discoveries don't lose value. But some philosophical discoveries seem to be made possible by this or that character. — g0d
I would say if a discovery is valid in itself, it will stand regardless of the character of the physicist or philosopher. Furthermore, I think that many discoveries in both philosophy and physics required a particular character to stumble upon it. I believe Galileo, Newton, and Einstein were known to be quite unique characters. — Merkwurdichliebe
I think Nietzsche was making the point that folk psychology is historically/geologically embedded in human understanding and natural language, and we all inherit it by birthright. The whole thing with the Ubermensch was to overcome the dominant illusion of folk psychology, and to create your own. — Merkwurdichliebe
She isn't modeling herself nor the people she encounters, she is modeling her experiences of herself and of the people she encounters. From her perspective she might say she is directly modeling people and herself, but from anyone else's perspective she is modeling her experiences of people and herself. — leo
If you assume she is actually modeling other people, you quickly encounter the problem that these people exist and do not exist at the same time. They exist to Alice, but they do not exist to those who have never met them. Isn't it more coherent to say that she is modeling her experiences of them? — leo
It is impossible to derive from their models that photons of wavelength 460nm stimulating an eye will give rise to an experience of the color blue. It is impossible because they have neglected the human perspective. — leo
What I think this demonstrates is a kind of 'presumptive naturalism', i.e. it arises from the very 'blind spot' at issue. And please don't take this as a pejorative because it's actually a very subtle and important point, and it's not by any means obvious. — Wayfarer
good character, although it might have corollary benefits and be scientifically explicable, it is infinitely important to me and my life, regardless of any honor, repute, or flattering narrative I may receive. — Merkwurdichliebe
But anyway, the polemical point I am working towards is that while naturalism is concerned with what can be explained, metaphysics is concerned with what explains us. It is 'upstream', prior, anterior, or something like that. — Wayfarer
The blind spot of science is the blind spot of religion is the blind spot of philosophy. Then grasping the contingency of the world is also 'the mystical' for some people. Or it's not mystical but just good philosophy. — g0d
This can also be framed in the context of the qualitative-quantitative dichotomy. The modern approach has married itself to quantitative understanding, only operating along the horizontal line. One might say such an approach is very one dimensional. — Merkwurdichliebe
Can you provide even one example of a supernatural explanation for any natural phenomenon that stand up to reasonable scrutiny, that we would have any reason at all to accept as true? Can anyone else on here think of any? — Janus
The metaphorical blind spot is a much harder thing to communicate, but it's certainly understood in at least some philosophies much more clearly than in others; — Wayfarer
Anyway- there is an end the implied infinite regress that you hint at. But it's not something that can be grasped discursively, as it were - that's one of the points of non-dualism — Wayfarer
Have you got the Routledge Intro to Phenomenology, ed. Dermot Moran, by any chance? There's a very good couple of pages on Husserl's critique of naturalism in it. — Wayfarer
Can the world as whole (which would include any god or principle) be explained? How do we avoid either infinite regress or brute fact at the apex ? — g0d
Is it possible to reconcile the uniqueness of human existence with being “at home” in the world? Can we live authentically human lives – ones fundamentally different from those of any other beings – without being compelled to regard ourselves as “aliens”, set apart from the rest of reality? To this question, Heidegger gave a single answer throughout his career, albeit one that was significantly modified. This answer was that we must overcome “the forgetfulness of Being”, for to “recall” and reflect on Being (Sein) enables us both to appreciate our uniqueness and to feel at home in the world.
I'm just saying that 'explanation' no longer feels right. It's a lurch into the esoteric and into the Mystery. That's fine. But doesn't this exit the game of reason ? — g0d
Naturalism is very much focussed on finding natural explanations for causal relationships - causes, effects, and causal patterns or laws.
— Wayfarer
Naturalism is focused on finding natural explanations for natural phenomena, Can you provide even one example of a supernatural explanation for any natural phenomenon that stand up to reasonable scrutiny, that we would have any reason at all to accept as true? Can anyone else on here think of any? — Janus
Naturalism is focused on finding natural explanations for natural phenomena, Can you provide even one example of a supernatural explanation for any natural phenomenon that stand up to reasonable scrutiny, that we would have any reason at all to accept as true? Can anyone else on here think of any? — Janus
Anyway you forgot to tell me where the passage you referred to is. — Janus
'The Reign of Quantity?' by Rene Guenon? That's what the title is referring to. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it but it's one of those books that is worth knowing about. — Wayfarer
I think it's in a way ironical that this idea of a transcendent reality is actually a kind of objective realism, — Janus
We have to bear in mind here that Husserl was a person of the late 19th / early 20th century. — TheArchitectOfTheGods
The point was not that our experiences are exactly the same, but that we perceive the same objects and that it can easily be shown that we can all agree about precise qualities and features of those objects. I can only imagine two possible explanations; one is that the objects are mind-independent and the other is that our minds are all connected together in some unknown way. — Janus
If Alice thinks that she and the people she encounters are real (actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed (OED)), then she will model them as being real. Similarly, if others accept that her reported observations and experiences are real (not as imagined or supposed), then they will also model those people as being real. — Andrew M
Sure, and ironically this includes mathematicians and physicists - not all of course, but some. I suppose it's not ironic about the mathematicians given Pythagorus, but that a significant minority of physicists are neo-platonists, in the hardest science (according to some), is .I pretty much agree with what you say. But there is an idea of the supernatural which posits or presupposes a transcendent reality, something ontologically more, and even more real, than what can be known via the senses. In the Western tradition this idea seems to begin with Pythagoras and Plato. — Janus
Yes, it is an objective realism, oddly reached as a conclusion deductively, at least by Plato.I think it's in a way ironical that this idea of a transcendent reality is actually a kind of objective realism, although it is not an object for Plato it was the most real, beyond the "doxa" or ordinary opinions which impute reality to the shadows on the wall of the cave. — Janus
But Alice and some others already agreed on what was real, so this new person is wrong, he is delusional, he ought to accept what is real! And if he doesn't we'll lock him up and attempt to make him see the right way, 'cause we can't have him running around not seeing reality as it really is, y'know. — leo
The more natural response for an intellectually curious realist would be to investigate why the new person thinks differently to the others given that they're all interacting in the same world. — Andrew M
Another way to put this, less sociologically (lol), is to say that people seem to see an excluded middle between full belief and disbelief. There is no 'agnositicism'. Or to put it a different way: it lack of enough evidence is often conflated with disproof. And to come at it a further way there is the assumption. if you have good grounds to believe what you believe then you must be able to, now, convince the majority of scientists it is the case. IOW there can be no instance where your belief is valid where you cannot convince, say, all rational people. The history of rogue waves or animals as experiencers counter this idea, which is unfortunately generally merely assumed not stated.Indeed. Personally I have mostly encountered intellectually incurious realists, who believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, who ridicule and dismiss those who believe differently as cranks, adepts of pseudoscience, believers of supernatural bullshit, brain diseased, delusional, too stupid to see why they are wrong — leo
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.